|
thelastleroy
|
 |
« Reply #150 on: October 18, 2014, 04:14:50 PM »
|
|
|
Log for the latest lamfa adjustments. From what I can tell the afr curve is much more natural-looking, but BTS is still kicking in up top. I'm waiting for confirmation on the address before I attempt to modify the threshold, and truthfully I'm considering leaving TABGBTS alone for a bit of safety on stock hardware. The car is much more fun to drive already, and with a k03 I'm not expecting much extra push past 5k anyways. Opinions?
How does this log look?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 04:31:47 PM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #151 on: October 18, 2014, 06:48:26 PM »
|
|
|
BTS is still kicking in up top. I'm waiting for confirmation on the address before I attempt to modify the threshold.
26EB2 As for leaving BTS as it is, I would not, but that's just me  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #152 on: October 18, 2014, 07:07:36 PM »
|
|
|
Log for the latest lamfa adjustments. From what I can tell the afr curve is much more natural-looking, but BTS is still kicking in up top. I'm waiting for confirmation on the address before I attempt to modify the threshold, and truthfully I'm considering leaving TABGBTS alone for a bit of safety on stock hardware. The car is much more fun to drive already, and with a k03 I'm not expecting much extra push past 5k anyways. Opinions?
How does this log look?
Looking REAL good... might dial back ZK a tad - LAMFA is still lumpier than it needs to be. Also, are we sure 11.5 (0.78) isn't a bit rich for this application? IMO we should be able to get away with 12.5 at these boost levels... what do you think dd? Ideally we'd need a dyno to be sure, but we could also do some FATS runs.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #153 on: October 18, 2014, 07:19:33 PM »
|
|
|
Looking REAL good... might dial back ZK a tad - LAMFA is still lumpier than it needs to be. Also, are we sure 11.5 (0.78) isn't a bit rich for this application? IMO we should be able to get away with 12.5 at these boost levels... what do you think dd?
Ideally we'd need a dyno to be sure, but we could also do some FATS runs..
That's what I'd do. We're not pushing timing. Target an AFR of between 12 and 12.5 (I am partial to .8438) and bump TABGBTS a bit, call it a day. Like Nye said, a *TOUCH* more filtering on LAMFA won't hurt. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #154 on: October 18, 2014, 07:21:06 PM »
|
|
|
26EB2 As for leaving BTS as it is, I would not, but that's just me Everything is coming together nicely in my opinion. BTS has been tamed a bit since we started. EGTs are down quite a bit too. @ 5000-5250rpms we are over 100% fuel injector duty cycle, and then it goes down to 95% by 6000 rpm. A bump of tabgbts, and lowering lrdxn @ 5000, and maybe a hair @ 5500 will be about all we need. One might even raise ldrxn a bit from 4-4.5k. We could also target a leaner AFR to get the FIDC's down a bit. Get this done, log it, and then it looks like we can bump the timing up a bit more and we'll be good to good. Edit: I agree with everything said above. They got theirs in while I was writing my reply. After leaning out the AFR I think the timing will be perfect. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 07:26:35 PM by SB_GLI »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #155 on: October 19, 2014, 06:38:43 AM »
|
|
|
Log and file:
I bumped up TABGBTS to 1001
Slight tapering of LDRXN
Lamfa adjusted leaner per DD's values
ZK just a bit less smoothing than stock
Will update xdf with TABGBTS later today
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 06:40:23 AM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #156 on: October 19, 2014, 06:55:45 AM »
|
|
|
Log and file:
I bumped up TABGBTS to 1001
Slight tapering of LDRXN
Lamfa adjusted leaner per DD
ZK just a bit less smoothing than stock
FIDC is now maxes at 92% @ 5k. Looks really good. If it were me, I would raise LDRXN to get a little more out of it before 5k (3k-4.5k). The TABGBTS changes makes bts barely kick in above 6k, so I think we are good there. Do we want to mess with timing at all? There is some room to advance a bit, but I would be satisfied with how it is now. Good work!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #157 on: October 19, 2014, 07:05:28 AM »
|
|
|
FIDC is now maxes at 92% @ 5k. Looks really good. If it were me, I would raise LDRXN to get a little more out of it before 5k (3k-4.5k). The TABGBTS changes makes bts barely kick in above 6k, so I think we are good there.
Do we want to mess with timing at all? There is some room to advance a bit, but I would be satisfied with how it is now. Good work!!!!!!!!!
Thanks! I'm not sure how much more boost we can handle with stock sidemount ic. 14psi hot air<13psi cold? As for timing, I will gladly modify and log, if we can come to an agreement where to start. I have 0 experience with timing advance. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #158 on: October 19, 2014, 07:56:12 AM »
|
|
|
Thanks!
I'm not sure how much more boost we can handle with stock sidemount ic. 14psi hot air<13psi cold?
As for timing, I will gladly modify and log, if we can come to an agreement where to start. I have 0 experience with timing advance.
It's really not that cut and dry. 14psi @ 4000 rpm is much different than 14psi @ 6000 rpm. You have to think of the overall volume of air that is required to make that boost at that rpm with the turbo in question. Looking at your intake temps, your only at 22.5 degrees at 5k. 4k is 15.75 degrees. After 5k it goes up considerably. As I said, I think you have some room to raise ldrxn before 5k. I'm not saying we want to target boost higher than what we have now, I am saying we try to sustain a little bit longer. As for timing, I think would could advance a bit, but didn't you say that you are running 94 oct gas? I think with the current advance we might see some corrections if you ran 91 oct. For the sake of learning though, we can add some timing so we can see/feel the benefit. We are logging rl, EngineLoad, which is the x axis (rl_w actually) on the kfzw maps. Also, we logging wnwi_w (CamshaftAngle). As the camshaft angle advances, we switch from KFZW2 to KFZW. Based on the logs the camshaft angle is advancing between 5k and 5.5k. So we use KFZW2 for changes below 5.5k and KFZW for changes above 5k. The timing curve flattens out from 4k to 5.5k. I think we focus on changes above 4k. I would add about 3.75 degrees at 6.5k tapering to .75 degrees at 4k. The tricky part, it that you have to do this through the two different maps. Just use your current log, and look at rl vs nmot to determine where you need to change values in the kfzw maps. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #159 on: October 19, 2014, 05:46:12 PM »
|
|
|
Looking into the timing adjustments tonight, but I'm a little confused 
The timing curve flattens out from 4k to 5.5k. I think we focus on changes above 4k. I would add about 3.75 degrees at 6.5k tapering to .75 degrees at 4k. The tricky part, it that you have to do this through the two different maps. Just use your current log, and look at rl vs nmot to determine where you need to change values in the kfzw maps.
I get the idea, but applying this to the maps is confusing me for some reason. I have some questions. When you say look at rl (load?) vs nmot (rpm?) to determine where to change values, am I to change the values along this plotted line, above them or below them? I get the tapering idea and that I need more advance at higher rpm, but I'm stuck on how to interpret the maps. I attached pictures of the maps and the rpm vs load chart if you can clarify I'd really appreciate it.  xdf updated (post#2) to include TABGBTS |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 05:58:31 PM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
 Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #160 on: October 19, 2014, 09:25:57 PM »
|
|
|
Any input for a 91 octane file, I was going to start by adjusting LAMFA for an 11.5 (.78) AFR. Attached is my first try for LAMFA.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #161 on: October 19, 2014, 09:35:21 PM »
|
|
|
When you say look at rl (load?) vs nmot (rpm?) to determine where to change values, am I to change the values along this plotted line, above them or below them? I get the tapering idea and that I need more advance at higher rpm, but I'm stuck on how to interpret the maps. I attached pictures of the maps and the rpm vs load chart if you can clarify I'd really appreciate it. Good post from ddillenger on the 2.7T community project thread. Here is how I view logs for timing work:  If the camshaft angle is 0, that means KFZW is being used. If it is 22, that means we're in KFZW2. In this log, we can see that from 3800 onward the values in KFZW are being used. Prior to that, it is KFZW2. We can also see two knock events. One at 2200rpm, 150ish load. One at 2500, 160ish load. Take a look at the values for in KFZW where 2500rpm and 150 load intersect. Reduce timing in that area. NOTE! Just because CF is 3, does not mean you have to pull 3 degrees! One knock event at that RPM means CF's will be 3. This is actually not bad, and can be left as is, but I wanted to post for illustration purposes. I would then suggest making sure KFZW/KFZW2 have the same values around 140-160 load at 3500-4000rpm to reduce the notch in timing. After that, relog. If you are not showing any CF's, I would then suggest adding more timing up top, from 4500 onward (to KFZW). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #162 on: October 19, 2014, 09:39:59 PM »
|
|
|
I tried to reproduce the graph from your latest log but don't see the cam switch... not sure what I am doing wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #163 on: October 19, 2014, 11:44:12 PM »
|
|
|
You are not doing anything wrong. Your file very rarely advances the camshafts, and never during a WOT pull in factory configuration. Thus, the camshaft angle is always 0 (a degree or two deflection is expected).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #164 on: October 20, 2014, 03:25:56 AM »
|
|
|
You are not doing anything wrong. Your file very rarely advances the camshafts, and never during a WOT pull in factory configuration. Thus, the camshaft angle is always 0 (a degree or two deflection is expected).
DD, when should I expect cam switch-over? I run the android "torque" app on my phone when I'm not logging to watch boost pressure and AFR, and I noticed that I overshoot my requested boost expectations in second gear pulls. Is this a result of camshaft advance? I want to adjust timing properly and include corrections for any possible knock events I'm not noticing while driving. Do we need a second gear pull log? Also, if you can clarify re altering the timing maps based on rpm vs load: -should adjustments to timing be made ONLY along this graph line? -positive numbers mean timing advance? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
